IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION NO: 31211 OF 2024 Between: Bodduboina Suseela, W/o Venkateswarlu, Aged about 38 years Occ D n-r. ^ T Kodurivaripalli, H/o Pedairlapadu Village 'p C Palli Mandal, Prakasam District. a . ■ ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Consumer Affairs and Civil Supplies Department Secretariat Buildings Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kanigiri, Prakasam District. 3. The Tahsildar, P. C. Palli Mandal, Prakasam District. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus may or any other appropriate Writ Order or direction declaring the action of the respondent 2 in cancellation of authorization of the petitioner vide proceedings in Rc.E/525/2024 dated 18.12.2024 without conducting any enguiry is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Articles 14,19 and 21 of constitution of India conseguently set aside the same. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court pleased to suspend the proceedings issued by the 2 may be respondent vide nd proceedings in Rc.E/525/2024 dated 18.12.2024 by continuing the petitioner as a F.P shop dealer in Shop No. 0840028 situated at R/o. Kodurivaripalli, H/o Pedairlapadu Village, P. C. Palli Mandal, Prakasam District by enabling him to supply to the card holders pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K.SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following order: 1 ^ *- BSB, J W.P.No.31211of 2024 APHC010595942024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION NO: 31211/2024 Between: Bodduboina Suseela ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.KSRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: r 2 BSB, J W.P.No.31211of 2024 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer; “...to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ Order or direction declaring the action of the respondent No.2 in cancellation of authorization of the petitioner vide proceedings in Rc.E/525/2024, dated 18.12.2024 without conducting any enquiry is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Articles 14, 19 & 21 of Constitution of India, consequently set aside the same and pass such order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Heard Sri K.Srinivas, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents. 3. The case of the petitioner is as follows: The petitioner is a fair price shop dealer vide shop No.0840028 situated at Kodurivaripalli, H/o Pedairlapadu village, P.C. Palli Mandal, Prakasam District and has been distributing the essential commodities to the cardholders without any remarks whatsoever. However, due to the change in the political scenario, the respondents are contemplating to supply the stock for the month of November 2024 to third parties. Hence, this writ petition is filed. 3 BSB, J W.P.No.31211of 2024 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the alleged variations in the stock are shortage of 60 kgs of PDS rice as against the total quantity of 5275 kgs., and shortage of seven (7) packets of sugar as against the three hundred and fifty seven (357) packets of sugar, and the said variation is bare minimal and hence, it does not call for harsh action of cancelation of dealership. N The learned Assistant Government Pleader represented that he has no written instructions, however, requested to dispose of the matter as per merit. 5. 6. The impugned proceedings indicate variation of the stock as follows: SI. Commodity Opening balance Receipts Total quantity Sales Closing balance Ground balance Variation No. (for 2024) 1 PDS Rice 5275 4015 1260 1200 {-) 60 kgs 2 Sugar 357 255 102 95 (-7) pkts. 7. Clause 29 (a) of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 reads as follows: 29. Marginal variations and minor irregularities at fair price shops:- No prosecution shall be launched in certain mistakes/lapses/omission/irregularities indicated below (which are illustrative and not exhaustive) against the Fair Price Shop dealers. 'v. 4 BSB, J W.P.No.31211of2024 (a) Minor variation in respect of single commodity upto 1.5% may be allowed taking into consideration of transactions of one month. (b) XX XX XX XX XX 8. A reading of the above said provision indicates that the variation in the PDS rice is less than what is permitted. Insofar as sugar is concerned, the variation is permitted upto five packets, whereas the alleged variation is seven packets. Therefore, it is not a case fit for cancelation of dealership, that too, without following the due procedure of holding enquiry. The manner in which the proceeding was issued in the light of the above-discussed circumstances indicates that it is not issued in accordance with the provisions of law. 9. In this regard, it is apt to note that this Court in C. Durga Srinivas 1 Rao and Ors. vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors., prescribed a detailed procedure to be followed and it observed at para No.26 as follows: “26. From a conjoined reading of the provisions of the Control Order, more particularly clause 5 and 24 read with the decisions of this Court, the following conclusions can be drawn, "(i) The appointing authority can suspend the authorization under clause 5(5) of the Control Order, if '2015(6) ALD 359 5 BSB, J W.P.No.31211 of 2024 > grave charges exist and the case warrants suspension, but should not be exercised in a routine manner without applying mind; (ii) The power of suspension under clause 5(5) of the Control Order includes the power to suspend the authorization pending enquiry and no show cause notice is necessary before exercising such power; (iii) The order of suspension should be followed by a show cause notice immediately by specifying the charges in clear terms and giving sufficient time to the dealer to submit his/her explanation; (iv) The charges so levelled may contain two parts viz., one, containing serious charges, which may attract the cancellation of authorization and another containing marginal variations and minor irregularities at fair price shops as indicated in clause 24 of the Control Order, (v) While issuing the show cause notice, the appointing authority shall enclose a copy of the report of any subordinate officer or a copy of the complaints received, which prompted him to take action; (vi) After receiving the explanation from the dealer, in case of denial by him, the appointing authority shall hold an enquiry and prove the charges levelled against the dealer. Such enquiry should be fair by placing the material before the dealer but cannot be elevated to the level of a regular court trial. The burden lies on the appointing authority to prove charges. The responsibility to hold enquiry shall not be delegated; 6 BSB,J W.P.No.31211of 2024 (vii) The enquiry shall be completed as soon as possible but not later than ninety days from the date of suspension. After completion of enquiry, the appointing authority shall record reasons in respect of each charge and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the Control Order, (viii) The order so passed should be communicated to the dealer immediately and shall not be implemented till the expiry of 30 days, the period for preferring appeal, (ix) It has to be noted that in all cases of proven charges, it is not necessary for the appointing authority to cancel the authorization and in appropriate cases, he/she can pass suitable orders imposing penalty or let off with a warning." As such, in the light of the above decision and considering the 10. alleged variation, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order in Rc.E/525/2024, dated 18.12.2024, is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SOI- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// To, ^ . SECTION OFFICER The Principal Secretary, Consumer Affairs anu »^ivii CDuppiies Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kanigiri, Prakasam District. The Tahsildar, P. C. Palli Mandal, Prakasam District. One CC to Sri K Srinivas, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP for Civil Supplies, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] Two CD Copies 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. RAM HIGH COURT DATED:06/01/2025 of § ORDER 21 JAN ^ Cui'rei'it Section ^ Ho -S', WP.No.31211 of 2024 DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS